Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling the amendments, which I hope are probing. I will do my best to respond to them. On the face of it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, suggested, there are benefits from inshore fisheries and conservation authorities being able to borrow money to purchase a new patrol vessel, for instance, which can cost a few million pounds. However, we must consider two issues. In practice, because parent local authorities would have the ultimate responsibility for any inshore fisheries and conservation authority borrowing, there is not much to be gained from giving them a direct power to borrow. Parent local authorities would still have a veto over any borrowing, and local government finance rules mean that borrowing would still count against the parent authority, given its legal responsibility to repay interest and capital via inshore fisheries and conservation authority budgets. Having their own borrowing powers would not mean a great deal to the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. They cannot bypass local authority approval for their spending plans in that way. Secondly, codes of practice for local government finance would mean that the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities would be very constrained in the amount that they could borrow. A loan requires that annual revenue of 10 per cent of the value of the loan is available for repayment. This would mean that the authorities would only be able to borrow relatively small amounts, yet the noble Baroness gave the example of a very significant purchase, a new patrol boat. There is little to be gained from the authorities having borrowing powers, but it would certainly complicate the budget process. There would need to be both agreement of the total budget by the Committee and agreement about any borrowing. Our preferred option is that the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities work closely with their parent local authorities to obtain the necessary funding from them, particularly if it came to anything such as large capital spending for a new patrol boat. This approach works pretty well at present. In the north-east the Sea Fisheries Committee and the local authority work closely together to enable the Sea Fisheries Committee to operate effectively, so we have a model for effective action. We do not see many gains from the proposal in this amendment. Amendment A240A, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke to, would mean that where an expense incurred by an inshore fisheries and conservation authority is covered by a means other than local authority funding, the relevant local authorities would not be required to defray that expense. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said about this. I assure him that it is possible for the IFCAs to get money from other sources. They can get it through sale-of-permit schemes, which we allow under Clause 152. There are also other services that they offer, such as enforcement for a fishery, which would potentially bring in revenue. They have sources of revenue other than the parent authority. I want to indicate the positive aspect of that. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, enjoined the Government to be positive, because he said that he would be positive about these issues. There is a positive dimension. As for authorities, under the noble Lord’s proposal, local authorities would not be required to cover expenses because another means of cost recovery is available to them. However, this is implicit in Clause 171 as it stands, because the expense incurred, as in the case of a charging permit scheme, for example, would be defrayed by charging for each permit. Therefore, it would not be the responsibility of the relevant councils. We have that covered and do not see that the amendment adds anything to the clause, whereas it contributes an element of uncertainty. That is why I would defend the Bill as it stands. Amendment A240B is interesting. It leaves out the final sentence in Clause 171(2), which clarifies that the order that establishes an inshore fisheries and conservation district can provide for the expenses to be split between the local authorities in a district by reference to any circumstance. The noble Lord said that here he was probing about the distribution of costs. Let me explain why this sentence is there and why I will resist its excision. The sentence is necessary because it clarifies that the order can go further than simply requiring each council to pay a portion of the expense incurred by the inshore fisheries and conservation authority, but that this portion can be calculated according to circumstance. It can be calculated, for example, according to the length of the coastline—a suggestion that emerged during this short debate. It is important to include this sentence so that we preserve flexibility about how local authority contributions will be calculated, partly because we have not entirely made up our minds about how they will be calculated yet—it is a difficult issue, as the noble Lord recognises; that is why he has alighted on it—and partly because there will be an element of flexibility, whatever means of allocation is decided on. The means will need the support of the relevant local authorities and will need to be appropriate and fair. Amendment A240C proposes changing the wording in Clause 171(4), which says that, ""an IFC authority’s expenses … may be vetoed by a vote of … members of a relevant local council"," by inserting, ""must be approved by a majority"." The concern behind the amendment is obvious—the noble Lord expressed it in terms of the local authorities having to approve the payment of expenses by a majority vote—but we already have this. We agree with him that it is right that the local authority should have a say about this, so it must have a vote. We should remember, however, that the budget for each inshore fisheries and conservation authority will be proposed, discussed and voted on by the committee as a whole. If accepted, the budget can then be put to the local authority members for approval, although in most cases this vote will be unnecessary: it being clear that the local authority members are content with the size of the budget. In this way, local authority members of committees will, by majority vote, be able to veto the total amount of IFCA expenditure. They are in a position to do so by dint of their membership of the authority. This will ensure control over the overall size of the budget by local authority committee members. Under the clause, the voting will be by majority vote, so the Bill already provides for what the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to do. The amendment is interesting and probes the issue, but it is covered by what we already have, and I hope that it will be withdrawn.